Kanti Bai vs Bisalik
2022 Latest Caselaw 2539 Chatt

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order sheet

                               SA No. 59 of 2022

                             kanti Bai versus Bisalik

            7-3




20-4-2022          Mr. H.S. Patel, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, PL for the State/respondent No.8

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there

was no documentary evidence brought on record with regard to

partition taken place in the year 1995. He would further submit that

in the revenue records the names of all the stake holders have been

mentioned, still the trial court has recorded a perverse finding that

partition took place in the year 1995 and that finding has been

affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Both the courts below have

recorded a perverse finding.

The appeal is arguable.

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of

law:

"1. Whether both the courts below were justified in recording a finding that the partition took place in the year 1995, despite no documentary evidence on record with regard to partition took place in 1995 and the names of the plaintiff and defendant have been jointly recorded in the revenue records.

2. Whether the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the properties mentioned in Ex.D/1 to D/6 have not been purchased from the nucleus of the joint family property, is perverse or contrary to the records?

On payment of process fee within one week, issue notice to

the respondents except respondent No.8/State, along with copy of

this order by ordinary mode as well as by registered mode. Notice

be made returnable within six weeks.

List this case after six weeks.

In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the judgment

and decree passed by the courts below shall remain stayed, till the

next date of hearing. Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Raju